5 ms·

Social Steganography: Learning to Hide in Plain Sight

29 points by seven 16y ago

gaius 16y ago
Facebook lets you restrict visibility on any post to a list. So this is umm a bit pointless really.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Until, of course, next time they decide to change the privacy settings without telling anyone; or next time there's a glitch. Personally I solve these problems by having a "no workmates or family members as facebook friends" rule. If I wouldn't be happy for them to see me at 3am with a bra on my head puking in a gutter, I won't friend 'em.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- seven 16y ago
  Facebook was just used to give an example of where/why/how people apply social stenography. edit: add a 'why' and a 'how'
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    But what's not added is -- it doesn't work that well. Human beings have always sent multiple messages to multiple people to keep an equilibrium between multiple types of social connections. But the problem is that this approach doesn't scale. The more groups you are in, the harder it is to send multiple messages simultaneously and effectively.
    - sp332 16y ago
      Political speeches are great at this. They use words and phrases that mean different things to different groups of people. And it scales to millions of people.
- jerf 16y ago
  And you only have to screw up once. No sale. The fact that I'd have four or five intersecting such groups to deal with is a major reason I'm not on Facebook. Don't even care to try.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  Hmm, I didn't know this. But I think most users probably don't know this. If they knew, they probably couldn't be bothered. Figuring what to share with whom manually is a daunting task. I suspect most folks either: * Maintain multiple identities. * Just share everything and hope for the best. * Limit what they share on facebook to what they would share in "public Not necessarily in that order Edit: If Facebook could automatically suggest who to share what with, then they would an ultimate kller app. But I think this problem is too hard currently, to say the least.
jacquesm 16y ago
That's been tackled exhaustively long ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifmRgQX82O4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifmRgQX82O4&feature=relat...
bmm6o 16y ago
I don't know, it seems like a lot of trouble to work around a problem caused by the medium (facebook).
- bmm6o 16y ago
  And, I know she's using the term loosely, but in general steganography does not require a loss of information. "Always look on the bright side of life" conveys much less information than "I just broke up with my bf".
sp332 16y ago
Funny, this URL is exactly the same as the one posted yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1630579 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1630579
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

29 points by seven 16y ago

gaius 16y ago

Facebook lets you restrict visibility on any post to a list. So this is umm a bit pointless really.

hugh3 16y ago
Until, of course, next time they decide to change the privacy settings without telling anyone; or next time there's a glitch. Personally I solve these problems by having a "no workmates or family members as facebook friends" rule. If I wouldn't be happy for them to see me at 3am with a bra on my head puking in a gutter, I won't friend 'em.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
seven 16y ago
Facebook was just used to give an example of where/why/how people apply social stenography. edit: add a 'why' and a 'how'
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  But what's not added is -- it doesn't work that well. Human beings have always sent multiple messages to multiple people to keep an equilibrium between multiple types of social connections. But the problem is that this approach doesn't scale. The more groups you are in, the harder it is to send multiple messages simultaneously and effectively.
  - sp332 16y ago
    Political speeches are great at this. They use words and phrases that mean different things to different groups of people. And it scales to millions of people.
jerf 16y ago
And you only have to screw up once. No sale. The fact that I'd have four or five intersecting such groups to deal with is a major reason I'm not on Facebook. Don't even care to try.
joe_the_user 16y ago
Hmm, I didn't know this. But I think most users probably don't know this. If they knew, they probably couldn't be bothered. Figuring what to share with whom manually is a daunting task. I suspect most folks either: * Maintain multiple identities. * Just share everything and hope for the best. * Limit what they share on facebook to what they would share in "public Not necessarily in that order Edit: If Facebook could automatically suggest who to share what with, then they would an ultimate kller app. But I think this problem is too hard currently, to say the least.

jacquesm 16y ago

That's been tackled exhaustively long ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifmRgQX82O4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifmRgQX82O4&feature=relat...

bmm6o 16y ago

I don't know, it seems like a lot of trouble to work around a problem caused by the medium (facebook).

bmm6o 16y ago
And, I know she's using the term loosely, but in general steganography does not require a loss of information. "Always look on the bright side of life" conveys much less information than "I just broke up with my bf".

sp332 16y ago

Funny, this URL is exactly the same as the one posted yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1630579 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1630579

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]